If two became one: The Droid DNA and Razr Maxx HD reviewed

A big battery and a high-res screen are nice—too bad we can't have both.

Just as the Megazord took the best of each "zord" to assemble in order to fight Rita Repulsa's monster creations, some smartphones make us wish that we could mash them up together to create an über-phone phone, more than the sum of its parts. The HTC Droid DNA and Motorola Razr Maxx HD are two such phones. On their own, they’re just two new handsets offered by Verizon Wireless, but if there were a way to make one phone out of them, together they would be the device that Android users have been waiting for.

On one hand, the Droid DNA's 1080p display currently holds the top spot for highest pixels-per-inch of any smartphone. Unfortunately, it also features a less-than-stellar battery life, which doesn't bode too well for users looking to maximize the usage out of its high resolution display and powerful processor. On the other hand, the Razr Maxx HD comes equipped with a 3,200 mAh sized battery, which can get it through almost an entire week on standby without needing a charge. But, when it comes to looks, the Razr Maxx HD is in desperate need of a makeover, not to mention that it's still sporting a dual-core Snapdragon processor, putting it at a disadvantage compared to the increasing number of quad-core Snapdragon competitors.

We'll review each phone individually to look at the features they offer, how well they perform, and where each handset has some room for improvement.

Meet the phones

The Droid DNA and Razr Maxx HD.

When Motorola revived the "Razr" branding for its Android handsets, we expected that it would stick with svelte handsets. Instead, the pudgy 9.5 mm thick Razr Maxx HD feels like a relic; its antiquated aesthetics make it look like less like a Razr and more like a 1996 StarTac.

Motorola's Droid Razr Maxx HD looks good from the front, but it's actually a kind of bulky.

Kevlar coating covers the backside of the Razr Maxx HD, which makes the phone tough but—when paired with the thickness—also makes it feel quite a bit dated. The right side of the phone features a volume rocker and a power button, while the miniHDMI, microUSB, microSIM, and microSD card slot all reside on the left. The awkward placement of the charging port makes the Razr Maxx HD difficult to use, and there is no way to unseat the battery without unscrewing the two Torx screws at the bottom of the device. There are no hardware buttons for Android's action keys on the Razr Maxx HD.

A closer look at the Razr Maxx HD's Kevlar-coated backside.

HTC’s Droid DNA, on the other hand, can teach the Razr Maxx HD a few things about style. Lined with red accents, the top of the phone features a slightly recessed power button and a pop-out slot for the MicroSIM, while the volume button resides on the right-side of the handset and the microUSB port hides behind a tiny pull-out tab on the bottom. The Droid DNA also features three physical hardware buttons for actions, and it comes equipped with Beats Audio, which only engages with headphones plugged in. Both phones come with an 8MP rear-facing camera, as well as headphone jacks on top and notifications buttons on the front. As an added bonus, the Droid DNA also features a flashing light on the back, so you will never miss a precious text message, as well as a 2.1MP front-facing camera.

HTC's Droid DNA is quite a looker.

The Droid DNA comes equipped with Android 4.1 Jelly Bean, but it also features HTC’s proprietary Sense UI. Sense UI can have a bit of a learning curve if you’re going over to the handset from a different Android phone, but it’s got several perks like a categorized app menu that sequesters Verizon’s bloatware applications in their own menu screen and a nice looking user interface. However, it doesn't come with all of the typical Android fare, like the Jelly Bean keyboard, and the phone is set by default to launch its own browser rather than Google Chrome.

The Droid Razr Maxx HD, on the other hand, came preloaded with Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich, but it received its official over-the-air Android 4.1 Jelly Bean update while we were reviewing the unit. If you stick with a Motorola handset, you get a user interface that's as close to stock as possible, but do yourself a favor and take some time to spruce it up a bit—those preloaded Droid wallpapers can be a bit much when paired with the Razr Maxx HD's widgets. Still, rest assured that Motorola will continue to hold hands with Google and frolic through the forest, so while updates may not be as consistent as they are for devices in the Nexus program, at least the UI is.

Display

The colors on the Razr Maxx HD (left) appear much more saturated than the Droid DNA (right).

The Razr Maxx HD features a 4.7-inch Super AMOLED display with a 1280 x 720 resolution at 312 PPI, which places it at the halfway point between the iPhone 5 and the Samsung Galaxy SIII. While it does a fine job of displaying video, it was difficult to distinguish the content in direct sunlight. In normal indoor settings the colors appeared to be more saturated than other displays, but that is often the case with Super AMOLED.

When it comes to displays, the Droid DNA is the real talking point. At 440 PPI, its 5-inch, 1080p Super LCD 3 display far exceeds the pixel density of any current smartphone. Video was clear and its colors were well distinguished. We were also particularly impressed with its rendering of 3D graphics—even the GL Benchmark was impressive to watch on the Droid DNA's high-resolution display.

The Droid DNA’s individual pixels are almost impossible to distinguish with just the naked eye, but as previously noted by Associate Writer Andrew Cunningham, it can be difficult to point out the difference between 720p on every other phone and the Droid DNA's 1080p. However, it is definitely obvious when it's scrutinized under a microscope (or, a very capable camera lens, as exhibited in the picture below).

It’s also important to consider that not all content is prepared for the Droid DNA’s honkin' 1080p resolution. As noted by DisplayMate CEO, Raymond Soneira, it’s not entirely worth adopting a 1080p screen if there isn't enough content to take advantage of it.

Battery

The 1080p display certainly takes its toll on the Droid DNA’s smaller battery pack. In previous battery tests, the handset’s 2020 mAh had performed horridly. At 100 percent brightness, the phone had a fully drained battery in about an hour and 45 minutes, and it was clear then that the Droid DNA has some trouble not only making it through the workday, but maintaining enough power to entertain you on the train ride home. In further testing, we discovered that its battery pack can’t even get through 20 minutes of Triple Town without dipping down 8 percent—the same amount that the Razr Maxx HD used up to stream TwinPeaks over Wi-Fi with the brightness and volume turned all the way up.

In the end, the Droid DNA ended up making it through two days of minor usage before it needed to be plugged in. However, it remained mostly in standby mode, with sporadic Instagram check-ins and a few phone calls here and there. In most real world situations, we’re constantly checking our phones, perusing email, or picking up a quick puzzle game. It’s important to note how long a battery can last if the situation calls for a day or two without a charger. The Droid DNA is the kind of phone that needs back up.

The Razr Maxx HD's 3200 mAh, on the other hand, truly shows the worth of a bigger battery pack in powerful smartphone. After an hour of streaming Netflix at full volume and full brightness the phone had used up only about 8 percent of power. It stayed more or less consistent through two and a half hours of Netflix streaming—battery life had only fallen 24 percent. Better yet, when left in standby mode through the night, the Razr Maxx HD only used up 5 percent of its battery life. In the end, it managed seven days of minor usage before the battery indicator started screaming for a charge. While the Razr Maxx HD does use up a chunk of battery life when streaming content over Wi-Fi, it is much more capable of getting through a whole day without charge.

Performance

How do these two Droids stack up against each other in performance tests?

The Droid Razr Maxx HD is powered by a dual-core, 1.5GHz Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 processor and 1GB of RAM. This particular SoC is especially power efficient, so it's paired well in this handset. The Droid DNA, on the other hand, contains the same quad-core Qualcomm 1.5GGhz Snapdragon S4 Pro processor and Adreno 320 GPU as some of the more recent competing handsets to enter the market, including the Nexus 4 and LG’s Optimus G. It is very powerful and proved to be one of the speediest mobile processors available right now—and the graphics power is especially needed considering that bright and vibrant 1080p display.

Overall, the Droid DNA is quite the contender among the latest smartphones to hit the scene. Its overall Geekbench score yielded almost similar results to the Nexus 4's and the Optimus G's, which isn't too surprising because the two handsets share an SoC. However, the Droid DNA performed lower in memory bandwidth tests because of how many pixels it has to push through to the display.

The Razr Maxx HD—the only other dual-core handset on the chart besides the A6-equipped iPhone 5—didn't perform too exceptionally among the crowd. It's a solid phone in its own right, but not one you'd pick out if you're interested in utilizing the latest components.

Droid DNA's onscreen Egypt Classic benchmarks performed just as well as its hardware counterparts, but it's unclear why it lagged behind in Egypt HD tests.

Stitching together an imaginary Frankenphone

If we could fuse the two handsets together, we'd have the perfect phone: a speedy SoC and a 1080p display with enough battery life to get it through an entire day's work. Essentially, the Droid DNA and Razr Maxx HD's major selling points are the other's biggest detriment. The Razr Maxx HD is a slowly aging phone with a massive battery pack that a device like the Droid DNA could really use to power up its high resolution display. A 3,200 mAh would give the Droid DNA the energy it needs to stay fueled throughout the day and give it an edge on other phones with the same components. All of the processing powering and display output in HTC's Droid DNA is very difficult to execute with a measly 2020 mAh.

The Razr Maxx HD could also greatly benefit from the Droid DNA's style. While a Kevlar backside and durability might seem appealing to a certain demographic, it seems lackluster for users who want a 3,200 mAh battery pack in a slimmer package.

Conclusion

Motorola's Razr Maxx HD can get through several days on standby and doesn't use up too much energy streaming a flick. It's well suited for the user who needs that kind of performance from a phone, but doesn't necessarily care for speed or the most current components. Its durable chassis will also certainly suit someone who drops their phone a lot, or works in a rugged environment.

HTC's Droid DNA is quite a looker, not to mention that it's really nice to look at. There might not be a ton of content that takes advantage of its high-resolution 1080p screen, but the performance benchmarks could sell a certain type of user on the investment. Unfortunately, it will require that there's a backup battery pack or USB cord tethered to it from time to time, so if you're constantly glued to your device, the Droid DNA may not be the handset you're looking for.

Wait... the DNA is "stylish"? Are you out of your mind? The awful aesthetics of that device are part of what keep me away! Red and black may be Verizon's signature colorscheme for their Droid devices, but it's hopelessly tacky.

In my eyes, at least, the RAZR Maxx HD is a far-and-away better (and classier) looking device than the DNA.

Wait... the DNA is "stylish"? Are you out of your mind? The awful aesthetics of that device are part of what keep me away! Red and black may be Verizon's signature colorscheme for their Droid devices, but it's hopelessly tacky.

Simple red accents are what drove you away?

There are three small splashes of red, a stripe on each side and a ring around the camera. Other than that it's a giant black brick, just like every other smartphone on the market.

I found the DNA to be an attractive phone with an amazing screen when I looked at it in the store. Its not at all practical, but its still a very cool tech demo of what displays will likely look like on high end phones in a couple years.

It might just be my american math classes, but only adding 50% more battery capacity doesn't sound like a recipe for all-day use if it's possible to kill a 100% DNA in a little over 100 mins. Granted, full brightness isn't that common, but you'd still have to use kid gloves with the battery. It just wouldn't be quite as absurd as it is now.

Wait... the DNA is "stylish"? Are you out of your mind? The awful aesthetics of that device are part of what keep me away! Red and black may be Verizon's signature colorscheme for their Droid devices, but it's hopelessly tacky.

Simple red accents are what drove you away?

There are three small splashes of red, a stripe on each side and a ring around the camera. Other than that it's a giant black brick, just like every other smartphone on the market.

It's not exactly an inconsequential amount of red trim... especially on the sides, it's quite apparent. I'm sorry, but Verizon's red/black theme on many of their branded Droid devices looks terribly childish. It's just not a very "clean" look. It screams tacky to me. Not that I think the 11ty brands on the back of my RAZR Maxx HD are particularly nice either, but it's that way on -every- Verizon phone, sadly.

Another thing I noted... the review makes it sound like the RAZR Maxx HD's use of Google-standard on screen buttons rather than hardware buttons is somehow a bad thing... or at least that's how it comes off to me.

It's a bit interesting that Motorola isn't offering a phone with the highest end processor as well as the big battery, as high end chips are what really make having a big battery more of a necessity.

Before I jumped on the WP8 bandwagon I was thinking about waiting for an AT&T version of the Droid DNA. Hearing how quickly the phone burns through the battery life, I'm glad I decided to go a different route.

Still, it's nice to see a 1080p phone on the market. Hopefully by the time I'm eligible for a new phone on-contract in a couple years there will be a nice selection of phones offering both the super-hi-res screens as well as the fastest chips available and huge batteries.

I agree 100%. Offer the best specs, capability, and flexibility, then figure out a design that can accommodate all of that.

I have the same issue with the MacBook Pro retina - everything about it seems great, except in the desire to make a super-thin device they dropped the optical drive and a number of ports (like ethernet). If you want to offer a super-skinny device for those who want that, go ahead, but also offer a more robustly sized alternative so that the power users won't be hamstrung by design choices that have less to do with maximum capability and more to do with design for the sake of design.

I just bought a Razr Maxx HD on Black Friday after picking it over the DNA. In addition to the short battery life of the DNA, the main reason I chose the Maxx HD is because the DNA has no removable storage and 16 GB internal storage, with 5GB unavailable to the user. I believe that is unacceptable in this day and age. With the 32 GB in the Maxx HD and a 16 GB micro SD card, I have all the storage I need for media (I stream music through my car stereo with Bluetooth) and carrying files.

I understand the Frankenphone idea, but considering that 1080p screens for a PHONE are... silly, that 720p screens are no slouch (again: for a PHONE), and a long-lasting battery should be a priority considering what a mobile, always-on, always-connected device is meant to do, I can't align myself with the subtitle of this article. It's not "too bad" at all, and just from the, "high res, or better battery?" angle, I would choose the Razr Maxx HD in a heartbeat.

Other than that it's a giant black brick, just like every other smartphone on the market.

Yeah, I loved how the author commented on the looks of the phones and then there are the images where apart from the angle of the rounded corners, they're identical (from the front at least). It's like a stupid high school movie where one hot actress is the cheeleader and another hot actress with glasses is the geek and everybody comments on how plain she looks.

For what it's worth I'm really happy with the DNA. Coming from a Samsung Fascinate (original Galaxy S) everything is so much smoother and more responsive. Which is completely understandable given the age of my old phone. The build quality is great too, although I have some concerns about the screen survivability in a drop, given that the glass sticks up above the frame. What I'm more surprised by is the battery life compared to the Fascinate. The DNA does much better that my somewhat age degraded Fascinate, but it's better even than the Fascinate was when it was new.

I have no problem getting through a day of regular e-mail/facebook checking, even with a couple hours of steady game playing or web surfing or something to kill time. I still finish the night we 20 - 30% even with heavier than normal use (for me). Often I'm barely below 50%. Sure if I play games or watch movies for 4 hours straight it will suck up most of the battery, but that's really rare for my usage. Compared to the Fascinate it's a big improvement, which was better than I expected.

I really would have liked to have a Nexus phone, but the Galaxy Nexus hardware is pretty long in the tooth, and I just didn't think I would get the performance I want out of it for an entire two year contract. I'm stuck on Verizon, so overall, this has been a good alternative.

the maxx HD still has 2 days under light/norm use (maybe 2-3 days if using it lightly, it last the day if you hammer it all day 5-8 hours screen on time depending on what your doing, its an very fun phone to use)

getting more then 2-3 days is Very unlikely on the Maxx versions i know as i have the none HD version of the Maxx and i Love it, i take the battery over any thing els on an android phone now, other phone makers should take note

only thing i do not like about moto is disabling the hotspot if the Operator says no or does not respond to the request for it to be allowed (hotspot will turn on but it not Bridge the hotspot with mobile data, unless you root the phone to fix it)

(are you still turning off mobile data and wifi to get them 5 day extreme very light results still as that is not realistic use to base how long the phone will last under day to day use)

The DroidDNA and The Razr Maxx HD are infuriating. How is it that we are in 2012 and that, arguably, the world's premiere cell phone carrier (Verizon), doesn't have a truly high end Android phone for the holiday season. A high end Android phone should have (at this point):

- At least 32gb of onboard storage ESPECIALLY if there's not microSD. Anything less is a joke.- A massive battery- Vanilla Android or the option to use it (this is partially Google's fault for not finding a way to force the issue)- Quad core processor- Fantastic camera that competes with the iPhone- a microSD slot (16GB of storage for apps, music, and movies is a joke. LTE isn't the beast that CDMA 3G was in terms of signal strength and with no more unlimited plans, public wifi/hotel wifi usually being too crappy to stream movies or, sometimes, even music the "cloud" is a moronic answer to media storage. Especially in a phone with a tiny battery because...streaming chews up video.)- OEM car dock on day one- I'd prefer a removable battery, but the MAXXHD battery life seems like I'd chance it.

I get that Google is trying a slightly different tactic with the new Nexus, but 3 Android phones have just proven to be a disappointment time and time again. If Verizon had the Lumia 920 or whatever, I'd buy it today and kiss Android goodbye. The Note 2 is probably the closest thing, but man the lack of Vanilla Android, no car kit, and the overall size of the thing are kind of killer.

If you want a large phone with large battery life, the Galaxy Note II is the phone to get right now.

It's not quite as good as the Maxx but it's better than almost any other phone. Of course, we all know how nice the screen is. It's not 1080p but 720p even at 5.5 inches has nearly indistinguishable pixels plus 3D performance remains fast.

Conveniently, it also has a removable battery, a microsd slot and a dock.

I can't help but feel that in this article, the RAZR is getting compared to something it isn't trying to be, Einsteins fish climbing trees quote comes to mind.

In one of the other threads around here recently, I remember someone commenting saying that most android handsets are not used to the extreme like the iphone. A lot of android users use them as a normal phone and dip into the smartphone features as and when needed, and for this I can't see why the razr is anything but a good idea.

Those sort of people don't care about benchmarks, they want some light browsing, maybe watch a video every now and then, and they want their phone to last a while.

Also, I would take a kevlar backed phone any day over a glass back like on the iphone 4/4s.

Another vote for bigger batteries. I'm on the old Desire HD. It never had a good battery, but now, combining it's small size, wear, and custom ICS ROM I run - battery life is abysmal. I can use 50% of battery life just browsing the net for an hour over HSDPA on 15% brightness. Even using apps like Tapatalk can easily chew through it in no time.Besides, I like a phone that I can feel the heft of - Galaxy S2 feels like it would break when I squeeze it and I fear it might slip through my fingers. I won't mind a bit more of weight and thickness.

What the...9½mm and that battery life is a "trade-off" I'm pretty sure 95+% of smartphone users would love to be able to make. It's the battery life these phones always should have had. The reviewer also seems unaware of the regular RAZR which of course IS a "svelte" smartphone.

If I was buying a smartphone these days I'd have a really hard time not looking closely at the MAXX. If 9½mm leaves room for that kind of battery, then every other smart phone maker on the market should be ashamed. Also, generally less large pieces of glass on phones please. Let's prioritize durability, okay?

Hmm actually I would like the author to clarify some points.The battery test performed here, seemingly disagrees with many other sites clamining acceptable battery performance:

Quote:

Engadget: "In terms of real-life usage, the DNA got us through a full day on moderate use" Cnet: "I was surprised by the HTC Droid DNA's battery performance, as well. Despite the phone's large screen and swift performance, the handset's embedded 2,020mAh battery lasted for a long 8 hours and 43 minutes in the CNET Labs video battery drain test." Gizmodo: "That big screen is paired with LTE and a relatively modest 2020 mAh Li-Ion battery, but the Droid DNA still lasted until 10pm every night with moderately heavy usage. It's certainly nowhere near the marathon levels of the Droid RAZR MAXX HD, but it outlasts the Galaxy S3." TechnoBuffalo: "The DROID DNA features a 2,020mAh battery, which was able to get me to the end of the day with about a 30 percent charge." PhoneScoop: "Battery life of LTE smartphones has come a long way in the last year. The DNA includes a 2,020mAh battery, which provides enough juice to use it for an entire day, even when under LTE coverage. In fact, I had a hard time running the battery down, even with intensive use. It consistently lasted longer than 24 hours." LaptopMag: "The Droid DNA packs a 2,020 mAh battery that's not removable, but we saw pretty good endurance given this phone's huge display. During the LAPTOP Battery Test (continuous Web surfing over 4G LTE on 40 percent brightness), the DNA lasted 6 hours and 29 minutes. That's a half-hour longer than the 6:01 category average... The Samsung Galaxy S3 lasted 6:55, but it also has a dimmer display." PCMag: "With all the processing power and the big, ultra-high-resolution display, battery life is a big concern here. The Droid DNA's non removable 2,020mAh battery was good for a solid 10 hours and 40 minutes of talk time, which is almost identical to the Galaxy S3's 10 hours and 43 minutes." PhoneArena: "We were desperately hoping for the best with battery life, but alas, it puts out nothing more than average results. Charging its 2,020 mAh battery, we’re able to fly by the 10 hour mark before it’s completely depleted – thus hitting the tally we’re normally accustomed to seeing with most Verizon 4G LTE smartphones." Phil Nickinson via Android Central -How I look at battery life: From the moment the phone is unplugged from the charger, it's "in use." For me, that usually starts about 6 a.m. I still think "display on time" is obsessed over a little too much. It's important, to be sure. But a poor network connection will kill a battery even if you're not using the phone. So don't discount what's happening when you're not holding the phone. Droid DNA battery life: It's good. Not just kinda good, but really good. At least as good as the Galaxy S3.

Be just bought the DNA and have had it for a week now. My wife has only charged it once a day. I am not seeing this "Battery Hog" everyone keeps talking about..maybe it's because she doesn't stream video all day? I know she streams pandora, plays some games throughout the day and listens to podcasts and uses apps. It's not much different from her iphone 4S. She still has to charge it after 10 hours of use.

Personally I like the look and feel of the Razr over the DNA any day. I like a solid phone and I like that it is a bit smaller then the current tend to spread out the size of a phone. I don't get the issue with the thickness of the phone, I like it to feel as I mentioned, solid. Also the battery, anyone else not a fan of not being able to get through a day with moderate to heavy use of their phone? Seems like the Razr is one of the few phones out there that has that covered.

"A big battery and a high-res screen are nice—too bad we can't have both."

Really? Cell phone reviewers from multiple sites have spent at least the last year gushing over phones simply for how thin they are, and bashing otherwise stellar phones for being 1 mm thicker or 10 g heavier than the latest anorexic. And *now* they're complaining about battery life? When you made it clear to designers and manufacturers that you'd wreck their multi-million dollar investment in creating a new phone unless it was a gossamer wafer, what did you expect to happen?

Keep the phone below 20mm and 250g and we're still talking about an amazingly portable device. Please let us choose the power and longevity of "pudgy" phones crammed with cores and batteries, instead of insisting on thin phones for nothing but the sake of fashion. It's like Will Farrell's old shallow skit character, who used to be laughed at for using an absurdly small phone, is running the review business now.

I've been using the DNA for about a week and I've actually been pleasantly surprised with the battery life. I was previously using a Galaxy Nexus (on Verizon) and the DNA seems to last as long, possibly a bit longer. The screen is, of course, beautiful. I'm not sure if the elements really look that much clearer than on a 720p screen, but the color reproduction has really surprised me.

Also, a minor correction to the article: Beats works when the device is connected via Bluetooth as well. I use it in my car and as soon as it connects, Beats turns on. Beats does *not* work with the phone's speaker, as previously noted.

I can't help but feel that in this article, the RAZR is getting compared to something it isn't trying to be, Einsteins fish climbing trees quote comes to mind.

In one of the other threads around here recently, I remember someone commenting saying that most android handsets are not used to the extreme like the iphone. A lot of android users use them as a normal phone and dip into the smartphone features as and when needed, and for this I can't see why the razr is anything but a good idea.

Those sort of people don't care about benchmarks, they want some light browsing, maybe watch a video every now and then, and they want their phone to last a while.

Also, I would take a kevlar backed phone any day over a glass back like on the iphone 4/4s.

Yep, the wife just got a RAZAR Maxx and she LOVES IT. I mean loves it. She has never been a fan of phones until now. The daughter being a lover of mobile phones, wants one and will get one once my contract is up in the summer. So, yea, I think Motorola is on to something with regard to the average phone consumer.

"A big battery and a high-res screen are nice—too bad we can't have both."

Really? Cell phone reviewers from multiple sites have spent at least the last year gushing over phones simply for how thin they are, and bashing otherwise stellar phones for being 1 mm thicker or 10 g heavier than the latest anorexic. And *now* they're complaining about battery life? When you made it clear to designers and manufacturers that you'd wreck their multi-million dollar investment in creating a new phone unless it was a gossamer wafer, what did you expect to happen?

Keep the phone below 20mm and 250g and we're still talking about an amazingly portable device. Please let us choose the power and longevity of "pudgy" phones crammed with cores and batteries, instead of insisting on thin phones for nothing but the sake of fashion. It's like Will Farrell's old shallow skit character, who used to be laughed at for using an absurdly small phone, is running the review business now.

I remember one skit where he was a manager at a trendy clothing store. Holy crap it was so funny even the cast members were having a hard time not laughing. I almost hurt myself laughing.

"A big battery and a high-res screen are nice—too bad we can't have both." When you made it clear to designers and manufacturers that you'd wreck their multi-million dollar investment in creating a new phone unless it was a gossamer wafer, what did you expect to happen?

In addition to agreeing with you 100%, the "gossamer wafer" comment made me snort my coffee!

I find this review quite annoying, it stinks of confirmation bias. The biggest problem is the battery comparisons... did the reviewer ever consider testing the same thing on the two phones? Maybe run the GLbenchmark battery test on the MaxxHD. Or maybe try streaming the a movie in the same way (ideally the same movie) on the DNA. Or maybe try playing Triple Town for 20 min on the MaxxHD. If anything related to the battery was tested the same I would have more faith in this review.

The closest this review gets is these two statements: "Droid DNA ended up making it through two days of minor usage before it needed to be plugged in" and " In the end, [the MaxxHD] managed seven days of minor usage before the battery indicator started screaming for a charge." I can't tell how apples to apples these particular usage scenarios are in the end, but it is interesting.

In the end, it didn't need to be like this.

Oh, and just as I side note, the actual Kevlar is actually a very thin component, so I don't see how this comment is relevant: "While a Kevlar backside and durability might seem appealing to a certain demographic, it seems lackluster for users who want a 3,200 mAh battery pack in a slimmer package."

Don't get me wrong, I'm in the market, and I'm torn between these two phones. But most of the other DNA reviews say that the battery is surprisingly good, and not a reason to completely thumbs down the device.

These benchmarks make it seem as if the Razr is slow... I've bought one (and I've owned multiple android devices and tested multiple iphones/BBs) and it's far from being remotely "slow". It may be a bit slower than the quad core processors, but I've seen dual-cores manage workloads better than quads in recent tests. As for the looks, the Razr is a beautiful phone. One of the main reasons I bought it... along with the expandable micro SD, notification light, long battery life, good camera, and kevlar backing.

One black slate conjures up images of a "1996 StarTac" while the other black slate is some sort of amazing design? We're talking about a 17 gram difference in weight between the two, and a thickness difference measured in microns (actually in favor of the MAXX if HTC's site is to be believed).

It's as if someone decided that reviewing the phones would be too much effort, so instead they decided to lump two non-reviews together to make one article. I expect Ars to do a thorough job when it reviews something, not be put to shame by other crap sites - even they manage to do a serious measurement of battery life.

I loved my HTC Incredible (with the extended battery). Really love the HTC Rezound (with the extended battery) - I can watch hours of video, make calls, check email obsessively, listen to music on a 64GB removable card, use the GPS, the 4G, and shoot endless videos....its huge! So what? (I do hate the glacial pace of HTC updates and I worry they could be a footnote in a year because of their finacial state, but who do they blame for that?)

What would replace it? No removable cards, replaceable batteries - like we are going backwards with technology.Give me quad core, loads of storage, 4K video on a 4.5" screen (you can't see the difference? Who cares, do it anyway), removable battery - make it the smallest battery in the world, then give me an option for a honkin' brick; I'm buyin the brick...Call it the Incredible Brick and send me two.

so the DNA has 3-4 hrs of light/normal use (iPlug phone) the maxx HD still has 2 days under light/norm use (maybe 2-3 days if using it lightly, it last the day if you hammer it all day 5-8 hours screen on time depending on what your doing, its an very fun phone to use)

This is just flat out untrue. It is possible to use up the battery on the DNA in a single day with heavy use, but it does take heavy use. Most of the day streaming, 4 - 5 hours of continuous gameplay or video on high brightness, etc...

For what I consider normal use (everyone is different, obviously), a few hours of web browsing (even on LTE), regular social network, e-mail, texting, an hour or two of games, it goes the whole day easily.

Even the synthetic tests where sites loop the 3D benchmark on max brightness last 4 - 5 hours, which is longer than the 3 - 4 hours you quote.

Real world use is decent. Not best in class by any means, but it's in the same ballpark as the Galaxy S III, which was considered pretty good. Compared to the first gen LTE phones, there is no comparison.

This review seemed very narrowly focused. One has a big battery, one has higher resolution. Here's some benchmarks, which don't really represent much at all.

You had lots of opportunities to expand on other features. An in-depth discussion of what sense vs. whatever blur has become, rather than a quick breeze-over. Included carrier apps and other android customizations and options. Camera comparison. Voice and call quality. Sound output. Aesthetics and button placement. Expandability options. Whether both batteries are user replaceable or not.

It's a review of 2 of the flagships of one of the largest US carriers. I just expected a bit more, and I'd love for Ars to back off on the benchmarks on phone reviews, which they don't really mean much to end users.

Quote:

It is very powerful and proved to be one of the speediest mobile processors available right now—and the graphics power is especially needed considering that bright and vibrant 1080p display.

No, it's really not needed, especially for the tests the phone was put through in this review. Last gen phones (snapdragon s3) could do 1080p output over HDMI.

Florence Ion / Florence was a former Reviews Editor at Ars, with a focus on Android, gadgets, and essential gear. She received a degree in journalism from San Francisco State University and lives in the Bay Area.